How to Build a Flying Saucer After So Many Amateurs Have Failed
Reading tools
Contents
Search
Display
Soundscape
Focus mode
Listen
Offline
Save
Collection
Buy CD-ROM
How to Build a Flying Saucer After So Many Amateurs Have Failed
(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=78, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
October 16, 1990
listed on KeelyNet as
UFO4.ZIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------
How to Build a Flying Saucer
After So Many
Amateurs
Have Failed
An essay in Speculative Engineering
by T. B. Pawlicki
--------------------------------------------------------------------
At the end of the nineteenth century, the most distinguished
scientists and engineers declared that no known combination of
materials and locomotion could be assembled into a practical flying
machine. Fifty years later another generation of distinguished
scientists and engineers declared that it was technologically
infeasible for a rocket ship to reach the moon. Nevertheless, men
were getting off the ground and out into space even while these
words were uttered.
In the last half of the twentieth century, when technology is
advancing faster than reports can reach the public, it is
fashionable to hold the pronouncements of yesterday's experts to
ridicule. But there is something anomalous about the consistency
with which eminent authorities fail to recognize technological
advances even while they are being made. You must bear in mind that
these men are not given to making public pronouncements in haste;
their conclusions are reached after exhaustive calculations and
proofs, and they are better informed about their subject than anyone
else alive. But by and large, revolutionary advances in technology
do not contribute to the advantage of established experts, so they
tend to believe that the challenge cannot possibly be realized.
The UFO phenomenon is a perversity in the annals of
revolutionary engineering. On the one hand, public authorities deny
the existence of flying saucers and prove their existence to be
impossible. This is just as we should expect from established
experts. But on the other hand, people who believe that flying
saucers exist have produced findings that only tend to prove that
UFOs are technologically infeasible by any known combination of
materials and locomotion.
There is reason to suspect that the people who believe in the
existence of UFOs do not want to discover the technology because it
is not in the true believer's self interest that a flying saucer be
Page 1
within the capability of human engineering. The true believer wants
to believe that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin because he is
seeking some kind of relief from debt and taxes by an alliance with
superhuman powers.
If anyone with mechanical ability really wanted to know how a
saucer flies, he would study the testimonies to learn the flight
characteristics of this craft, and then ask, "How can we do this
saucer thing?" This is probably what Werner Von Braun said when he
decided that it was in his self-interest to launch man into space:
"How can we get this bird off the ground, and keep it off?"
Well, what is a flying saucer? It is a disc-shaped craft about
thirty feet in diameter with a dome in the center accommodating the
crew and, presumably, the operating machinery. And it flies. So
let us begin by building a disc-shaped airfoil, mount the cockpit
and the engine under a central canopy, and see if we can make it
fly. As a matter of fact, during World War II the United States
actually constructed a number of experimental aircraft conforming to
these specifications, and photographs of the craft are published
from time to time in popular magazines about science and flight. It
is highly likely that some of the UFO reports before 1950 were
sightings of these test flights. See how easy it is when you 'want'
to find answers to a mystery?
The mythical saucer also flies at incredible speeds. Well, the
speeds believed possible depend upon the time and place of the
observer. As stated earlier, a hundred years ago, twenty-five miles
per hour was legally prohibited in the belief that such a terrific
velocity would endanger human life. So replace the propeller of the
experimental disc airfoil with a modern aerojet engine. Is mach 3
fast enough for believers?
But the true saucer not only flies, it also hovers. You mean
like a Hovercraft? One professional engineer translated Ezekiel's
description of heavenly ships as a helicopter-cum-hovercraft.
But what of the anomalous electromagnetic effects manifest in
the space surrounding a flying saucer? Well, Nikola Tesla
demonstrated a prototype of an electronic device that was eventually
developed into the electron microscope, the television screen, an
aerospace engine called the Ion Drive. Since World War II, the
engineering of the Ion Drive has been advanced as the most promising
solution to the propulsion of interplanetary spaceships. The drive
operates by charging atomic particles and directing them with
electro-magnetic force as a jet to the rear, generating a forward
thrust in reaction. The advantage of the Ion Drive over chemical
rockets is that a spaceship can sweep in the ions it needs from its
flight path, like an aerojet sucks in air through its engines.
Therefore, the ship must carry only the fuel it needs to generate
the power for its chargers; there is no need to carry dead weight in
the form of rocket exhaust. There is another advantage to be
derived from ion rocketry: The top speed of a reaction engine is
limited by the ejection velocity of its exhaust. An ion jet is
close to the speed of light. If space travel is ever to be
practical, transport will have to achieve a large fraction of the
speed of light.
In 1972 the French journal Science et Avenir reported Franco-
Page 2
American research into a method of ionizing the airstream flowing
over the wings to eliminate sonic boom, a serious objection to the
commercial success of the Concorde. Four years later a picture
appeared in an American tabloid of a model aircraft showing the
current state of development. The photograph shows a disc-shaped
craft, but not so thin as a saucer; it looks more like a flying
curling stone. In silent flight, the ionized air flowing around the
craft glows as a proper ufo should. The last word comes from an
engineering professor at the local university; he has begun
construction of a flying saucer in his backyard.
To the true believer, the flying saucer has no jet. It seems
to fly by some kind of antigravity. As antigravity is not known to
exist in physical theory or experimental fact in popular science,
the saucer is clearly alien and beyond human comprehension. But
antigravity depends upon what you conceive gravity to be, doesn't
it?
For all practical purposes, you do not have to understand what
Newton and Einstien mean by gravity. Gravity is an acceleration
downward, to the center of the earth. Therefore, antigravity is an
acceleration upward. As far as practical engineering is concerned,
any means to achieve a gain in altitude is an antigravity engine.
An airplane; a balloon; a rocket; a stepladder; all are antigravity
engines. See how easy it is to invent an antigravity engine?
There are three basic kinds of locomotive engines. The primary
principle is traction. The foot and the wheel are traction engines.
The traction engines depend upon friction against a surrounding
medium to generate movement, and locomotion can proceed only as far
and as speedily as the surrounding friction will provide. The
second principle is displacement. The balloon and the submarine
rise by displacing a denser medium; they descend by displacing less
that their weight. The tertiary drive is the rocket engine. A
rocket is driven by reaction from the mass of material it ejects.
Although a rocket is most efficient when not impeded by a
surrounding medium, it must carry not only it's fuel but also the
mass it must eject. As a consequence, the rocket is impractical
where powerful acceleration is required for extended drives. In
chemical rocketry, ten minutes is a long burn for powered flight.
What is needed for practical antigravity locomotion is a fourth
principle which does not depend upon a surrounding medium or
ejection of mass.
You must take notice that none of the principles of locomotion
required any new discovery. they have all been around for thousands
of years, and engineering only implemented the principle with
increasing efficiency. A fourth principle of locomotion has also
been around for thousands of years: It is centrifugal force.
Centrifugal force is the principle of the military sling and the
medieval catapult.
Everyone knows that centrifugal force can overcome gravity. If
directed upward, centrifugal force can be used to drive an
antigravity engine. The problem engineers have been unable to solve
is that centrifugal force is generated in all directions on the
plane of the centrifuge. It won't provide locomotion unless the
force can be concentrated in one direction. The solution of the
sling, of releasing the wheeling at the instant the centrifugal
Page 3
force is directed along the ballistic trajectory, has all the
inefficiencies of a cannon. The difficulty of the problem is not
real, however. There is a mental block preventing people from
perceiving a centrifuge as anything other than a flywheel.
A bicycle wheel is a flywheel. If you remove the rim and tire,
leaving only the spokes sticking out of the hub, you still have a
flywheel. In fact, spokes alone make a more efficient flywheel than
the complete wheel; this is because momentum only goes up only in
proportion to mass but with the square of speed. Spokes are made of
drawn steel with extreme tensile strength, so spokes alone can
generate the highest level of centrifugal force long after the rim
and tire have disintegrated. But spokes alone still generate
centrifugal force equally in all directions from the plane of
rotation. All you have to do to concentrate centrifugal force in
one direction is remove all the spokes but one. That one spoke
still functions as a flywheel, even though it is not a wheel any
longer.
See how easy it is once you accept an attitude of solving one
problem at a time as you come to it? You can even add a weight to
the end of the spoke to increase the centrifugal force.
But our centrifuge still generates a centrifugal force
acceleration in all directions around the plane of rotation even
though it doesn't generate acceleration equally in all directions at
the same time. All we have managed to do is make the whole ball of
wire wobble around the common center of mass between the axle and
free end of the spoke. To solve this problem, now that we have come
to it, we need merely to accelerate the spoke through a few degrees
of arc and then let it complete the cycle of revolution without
power. As long as it is accelerated during the same arc at each
cycle, the locomotive will lurch in one direction, albeit
intermittently. But don't forget that the piston engine also drives
intermittently. The regular centrifugal pulses can be evened out by
mounting several centrifuges on the same axle so that a pulse from
another flywheel takes over as soon as one pulse of power is past
it's arc.
The next problem facing us is that the momentum imparted to the
centrifugal spoke is carries it all around the cycle with little
loss of velocity. The amount of concentrated centrifugal force
carrying the engine in the desired direction is too low to be
practical. Momentum is half the product of mass multiplied by
velocity squared. Therefore, what we need is a spoke that has a
tremendous velocity with minimal mass. They don't make spokes like
that for bicycle wheels. A search through the engineers' catalog
however, turns up just the kind of centrifuge we need. An electron
has no mass at rest (you cannot find a smaller minimum mass than
that); all it's mass is inherent in its velocity. So we build an
electron raceway in the shape of a doughnut in which we can
accelerate an electron to a speed close to that of light. As the
speed of light is approached, the energy of acceleration is
converted to a momentum approaching infinity. s it happens, an
electron accelerator answering our need was developed by the
University of California during the last years of World War II. It
is called a betatron, and the doughnut is small enough to be carried
comfortably in a man's hands.
Page 4
We can visualize the operation of the Mark I from what is known
about particle accelerators. To begin with, high energy electrons
ionize the air surrounding them. This causes the betatrons to glow
like an annular neon tube.
Therefore, around the rim of the saucer a ring of lights will
glow like a string of shining beads at night. The power required
for flight will ionize enough of the surrounding atmosphere to short
out all electrical wiring in the vicinity unless it is specially
shielded. In theory, the top speed of the Mark I is close to the
speed of light; in practice there are many more problems to be
solved before relativistic speeds can be approached.
The peculiar property of microwaves heating all material
containing the water molecule means that any animal luckless enough
to be nearby may be cooked from the inside out; vegetation will be
scorched where a saucer lands; and any rocks containing water of
crystallization will be blasted. Every housewife with a microwave
knows all this; only hard-headed scientists and soft-headed true
believers are completely dumbfounded. The UFOnauts would be cooked
by their own engines, too, if they left the flight deck without
shielding. This probably explains why a pair of UFOnauts, in a
widely published photograph, wear reflective plastic jumpsuits.
Mounting the betatrons outboard on a disc is an efficient way to get
them away from the crew's compartment, and the plating of the hull
shields the interior. At high accelerations, increasing amounts of
power are transformed into radiation, making the centrifugal drive
inefficient in strong gravitational fields. The most practical
employment of this engineering is for large spacecraft, never
intended to land. The flying saucers we see are very likely
scouting craft sent from mother ships moored in orbit. For brief
periods of operation, the heavy fuel consumption of the Mark I can
be tolerated, along with radiation leakage - especially when the
planet being scouted is not your own.
When you compare the known operating features of particle
centrifuges with the eyewitness testimony, it is fairly evident that
any expert claiming flying saucers to be utterly beyond any human
explanation is not doing his homework, and he should be reexamined
for his professional license.
For dramatic purpose, I have classified the development of the
flying saucer through five stages:
Mark I - Electronic centrifuges mounted around a fixed disc,
outboard.
Mark II - Electronic centrifuges mounted outboard around a
rotating disc.
Mark III - Electronic centrifuges mounted outboard around a
rotating disc, period of cycles tuned to harmonize
with ley lines, for jet assist.
Mark IV - Particle centrifuge tuned to modify time coordinates
by faster than light travel.
Mark V - No centrifuge. Solid state coils and crystal
harmonics transforms ambient field directly for
dematerialization and rematerialization at
destinations in time and space.
Now that the UFO phenomenon has been demystified and reduced to
Page 5
human ken, we can proceed to prove the theory. If your resources
are like those of the PLO, you can go ahead and build your own
flying saucer without any further information from me, but I have
nothing to work with except the junk I can find around the house.
I found an old electric motor that had burned out, but still
had a few turns left in it. I drilled a hole through the driving
axle so that an eight inch bar would slide freely through it. I
mounted the motor on a chassis so that the bar would rotate on an
eccentric cam. In this way in end of the bar was always extended in
the same direction while the other end was always pressed into the
driving axle. As both ends had the same angular velocity at all
times, the end extending out from the axle would always have a
higher angular momentum. This resulted in a concentration of
centrifugal acceleration in one direction. when I plugged the in
the motor, the sight of my brainchild lurching ahead - unsteadily,
but in a constant direction, - gave me a bigger thrill than my
baptism of sex - lasted longer, too. But not much longer. In less
than twenty seconds the burned-out motor gasped its last and died in
a puff of smoke; the test run was broadcast on radio microphone but
the spectacle was lost without television. Because my prototype did
not survive long enough to run in two directions I had to declare
the test inconclusive because of mechanical breakdown. So, what the
hell, the Wright brothers didn't get far off the ground the first
time they tried either. Now that I know the critter will move, it
is worthwhile to put a few bucks in to a new motor, install a
clutch, and gear the transmission down. One problem at a time is
the way it goes.
A rectified centrifuge small enough to hold in one hand and
powered by solar cells, based on my design, could be manufactured
for about fifty dollars (depending on production and competitive
bids). Installed on Skylab, it would be sufficient to keep the
craft in orbit indefinitely. A larger Hyperspace Drive (as I call
this particular design) will provide a small but constant
acceleration for interplanetary spacecraft that would accumulate
practical velocities over runs of several days.
It is rumored that a gentleman by the name of Dean invented
another kind of antigravity engine sometime during the past fifty
years, but I have been unable to track down any more information
except that its design consists of wheels within wheels. A
gentleman in Florida, Hans, Schnebel, sent me a description of a
machine he built and tested that is similar in principle to the Dean
drive. Essentially, a large rotating disk has a smaller rotating
disc on one side of the main driving axle. The two wheels are
geared together so that a weight mounted on the rim of the smaller
wheel is always at the outside of the larger wheel during the same
length of arc of each revolution, and always next to the main axle
during the opposite arc. What happens is that the velocity of the
weight is amplified by harmonic coincidence with the large rotor
during one half of its period of revolution, and diminished during
the other half cycle. This concentrates momentum in the same
quarter continually, to rectify the centrifuge. The result is
identical to my Hyperspace Drive, @ut hasthe beauty of continuously
rotating motion. Now, if the Dean drive is made with a huge main
rotor, - like about thirty feet in diameter - there is enough room
to mount a series of smaller wheels around the rim, set in gimbals
Page 6
for attitude control, an Mr. Dean himself has himself a model T
Flying Saucer requiring no license from the AEC.
In 1975, Professor Eric Laithwaite, Head of the Department of
Electrical Engineering at the Imperial College of Science and
Technology in London, England, invented another approach to
harnessing the centrifugal force of a gyroscope to power an
antigravity engine - well, he almost invented it, but he did not
have the sense to hold onto success when he grasped it. Professor
Laithwaite is world-renowned for his most creative solutions to the
problems of magnetic-levitation-propulsion systems, and the fruit of
his brain is operating today in Germany and Japan, his railway
trains float in the air while traveling at over three hundred miles
per hour. If anyone can present the world with a proven anti
gravity engine, it must be the professor.
Laithwaite satisfied himself that the precessional force
causing a gyroscope to wobble had no reaction. This is a clear
violation of Newton's Third Law of Motion as 'generally conceived'.
Laithwaite figured that if he could engage the precessional
acceleration while the gyroscope wobbled in one direction and
release the precession while it wobble in other directions, he would
be able to demonstrate to a forum of colleagues and critics at the
college a rectified centrifuge that worked as a proper antigravity
engine. His insight was sound but he did not work it out right.
All he succeeded in demonstrating was a 'separation between action
and reaction,' and his engine did nothing but oscillate violently.
Unfortunately, neither Laithwaite or his critics were looking for a
temporal separation between action and reaction, so the loophole he
proved in Newton's Third Law was not noticed. Everyone was looking
for action without reaction, so no one saw anything at all.
Innumerable other inventors have constructed engines essentially
identical to Laithwaite's, including a young high school dropout who
lives across the street from me.
Another invention described is U.S. Patent disclosure number
3,653,269, granted to Richard Foster, a retired chemical engineer in
Louisiana. Foster mounted his gyroscopes around the rim of a large
rotor disc, like a two cylinder flying saucer. Every time the rotor
turns a half cycle, the precessional twist of the gyros in reaction
generates a powerful force. During the half cycle when Foster's
gyros were twisting in the other direction, his clutch grabbed and
transmitted the power to the driving wheels. During the other half
cycle, the gyros twisted freely. Foster claims his machine traveled
four miles per hour until it flew to pieces from centrifugal forces.
After examining the patents, I agreed that it looked like it would
work, and it certainly would fly to pieces because the bearing
mounts were not nearly strong enough to contain the powerful
twisting forces his machine generated. Foster's design, however,
cannot be included among antigravity engines because it would not
operate off the ground. He never claimed it would, and Foster
always described his invention truthfully as nothing more than an
implementation of the fourth principle of locomotion.
What Laithwaite needed was another rotary component, like the
Dean drive, geared to his engine's oscillations so that they would
always be turned to drive in the same direction. As it happens, an
Italian by the name of Todeschini recently secured a patent on this
Page 7
idea, and his working model is said to be attracting the interest of
European engineers.
When the final rectifying device is added to the essential
Laithwaite design, all the moving parts generate the vectors of a
vortex, and the velocity generated is the axial thrust of the
vortex. Therefore I call inventions based on this design the Vortex
Drive.
By replacing the Hyperspace modules of the Mark I Flying Saucer
with Vortex modules, still retaining the essential betatron as the
centrifuge, performance is improved for the Mark II. To begin with,
drive is generated only when the main rotor is revolving, so the
saucer can be parked with the motor running. This eliminates the
agonizing doubt we all suffered when the Lunar Landers were about to
blast off to rejoin the command capsule: Will the engine start?
This would explain why the ring of lights around the rim of a saucer
is said to begin to revolve immediately prior to lift off. A
precessional drive affords a wider range of control, and the
responses are more stable than a direct centrifuge. But the most
interesting improvement is the result of the 'structure' of the
electromagnetic field generated by the Vortex drive. By amplifying
and diminishing certain vectors harmonically, the Mark III flying
saucer can ride the electromagnetic current of the Earth's
electromagnetic field like the jet stream. And this is just what we
see UFO's doing, don't we, as they are reported running their
regular flight corridors during the biennial tourist season.
Professor Laithwaite got all this together when he conceived of his
antigravity engine as a practical application of his theory of
"rivers of energy running through space"; he just could not get it
off the drawing board the first time.
The flying saucer consumes fuel at a rate that cannot be
supplied by all the wells in Arabia. Therefore we have to assume
that UFO engineers must have developed a practical atomic fusion
reactor. But once the Mark III is perfected, another fuel supply
becomes attainable, and no other is so practical for flying saucer.
The Moray Valve converts the Mark III into a Mark IV Flying Saucer
by extending its operational capabilities through 'time' as well as
space. The Moray Valve, you see, functions by changing the
direction of flow of energy in the Sun's gravitational field. It is
the velocity of energy that determines motion, and motion determines
the flow of time. We shall continue the engineering of flying
saucers in the following essays.
My investigation into antigravity engineering brought me a
technical report while this typescript was in preparation. Dr.
Mason Rose, President of the University for Social Research,
published a paper describing the discoveries of Dr. Paul Alfred
Biefeld, astronomer and physicist at the California Institute for
Advanced Studies, and his assistant, Townsend Brown. In 1923
Biefeld discovered that a heavily charged electrical condensor moved
toward its positive pole when suspended in a gravitational field.
He assigned Brown to study the effect as a research project. A
series of experiments showed Brown that the most efficient shape for
a field propelled condensor was a disc with a central dome. In 1926
Townsend published his paper describing all the construction
features and flight characteristics of a flying saucer, conforming
to the testimony of the first flight witnessed over Mount Rainer
Page 8
twenty-one years later and corroborated by thousands of witnesses
since. (The Biefeld-Brown Effect explains why a Mark III rides the
electromagnetic jet stream.)
We may speculate that flying saucers spotted from time to time
may not only include visitors from other planets and travelers
through time, but also fledglings from an unknown number of cuckoo's
nests in secret experimental plants all over the world. The space
program at Cape Canaveral may be nothing more than a supercolossal
theatre orchestrated by Cecil B. Demille to reassure Americans that
they are still 'numero uno' after Russia beat our atomic ace by
putting Sputnik into orbit. We need not doubt that the Apollo
spaceships got to the Moon, but we may wonder if Neil Armstrong was
the first man to land there. The real space program may have been
conducted in secret as a spin-off from the Manhattan Project since
the end of World War II, and Apollo 13 may have been picked up by a
sag wagon to make sure our team scored a home run every time they
went to bat. The exploration of space is the most dangerous
enterprise ever taken on by a living species. Don't you ever wonder
why the Russians are losing men in space like a safari being
decimated in headhunter country, while nothing ever happens to our
boys except accidents during ground training?
-T.B. Pawlicki
Well, I hope you enjoyed that. Coming soon in our series of
informational speculations:
Build your own Time Machine,
Build your own Pyramid or Megalith,
Turn lead into gold,
Create a worldwide communications network,
and my personal favorite,
How to build an atomic bomb.
Now if someone knows how we can clone a person using household
materials, that would be the topper of the toppers. Keep your mind
open, but not so open that your brains fall out...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This file courteously supplied to KeelyNet
by the Darkside (Ken Geest) at
314-644-6705
--------------------------------------------------------------------
-The Rev.
Transcendental Communications...
UFOs!
Conspiracies & Cover-Ups!
New Age!
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] \/
[] [] _______
^ [] BBS# (714)599-6270 [] (_______)
/ \ [] [] ../ o o o o \..
/ \ [] FAX# (714)599-5045 [] (_______________)
/ (o) \ [] [] ~~~~~~~~~
/ \ [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] .............
-----------
Page 9
Vangard Notes
I had the pleasure of meeting Tom at the 1987 Global Sciences
Congress in Denver. He is as fascinating in person as his writings
indicate. Tom has also written 2 excellent books, "How to Build a
Flying Saucer" and "Hyper-Space". We have kept in contact since
that time by mail.
You may write Tom at : T. B. Pawlicki
843 Fort Street
Victoria, B.C.
V8W 1H6
Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics as
this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the Vangard
Sciences address as listed on the first page. Thank you for your
consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 10
Ask PRATIBHA about this text
Answers quote this scripture directly and show their sources.
Reflect on this passage
Only you can see these notes. They stay on this device.